Syndicate co-op and sp = different games? What?

Posted by Sunjammer (881 posts) -

I, like many, have been playing Syndicate quite a lot since it got released. I was a skeptic to begin with, but Jeff's review pushed me over the edge, and to be honest it's the best pure first person shooter I've played since the original FEAR. This is a game that really gets gunplay and the flow of movement, and I had just tons of fun playing through the campaign, and still having tons of fun now in co-op. It's a remarkably unpretentious game, with a pure focus, and it comes out like a real well cut diamond. It's just one of those games that knows what it is and trims away anything else.

So after a particularly nice online session today, I actually got kind of mad (I never get upset about games, right? ;-P).

The thing is, people love to knock this game's single player campaign. Penny Arcade even went as far as to call the campaign and the co-op game "two separate games" asking "which came first" as though the difference is huge. I just can't wrap my head around that point of view. The entire reason Syndicate is a game that stands up to scrutiny is because its mechanics, report and moment to moment gameplay are incredibly well crafted. This is a game where the story as a whole to be totally honest was not part of what I paid for. Of course it WAS, but in enjoying the package, I quickly came to love simply moving about and using the weaponry. That is what Syndicate is about, not the hero's journey.

So, please, critics, explain to me how a single player game, and a co-operative version of it with identical mechanics, can see such disparaging opinions? Are people so unaccustomed to playing alone that the mere introduction of other human beings is enough to wholly elevate the entire experience to the point that some will call it a whole other game? You are still shooting the same guns, at the same AIs, in simpler levels with less production value. Is it the progression that's doing it for you? Is that process of filling up all those progress bars what makes it a "different game"?

I just don't get it. It's as though the critics don't fully understand what it is that they are criticising; I know I can't have been playing the same game, because Syndicate plays 100% the same in both modes, barring a few more progress bars to fill.

#1 Posted by Sunjammer (881 posts) -

I, like many, have been playing Syndicate quite a lot since it got released. I was a skeptic to begin with, but Jeff's review pushed me over the edge, and to be honest it's the best pure first person shooter I've played since the original FEAR. This is a game that really gets gunplay and the flow of movement, and I had just tons of fun playing through the campaign, and still having tons of fun now in co-op. It's a remarkably unpretentious game, with a pure focus, and it comes out like a real well cut diamond. It's just one of those games that knows what it is and trims away anything else.

So after a particularly nice online session today, I actually got kind of mad (I never get upset about games, right? ;-P).

The thing is, people love to knock this game's single player campaign. Penny Arcade even went as far as to call the campaign and the co-op game "two separate games" asking "which came first" as though the difference is huge. I just can't wrap my head around that point of view. The entire reason Syndicate is a game that stands up to scrutiny is because its mechanics, report and moment to moment gameplay are incredibly well crafted. This is a game where the story as a whole to be totally honest was not part of what I paid for. Of course it WAS, but in enjoying the package, I quickly came to love simply moving about and using the weaponry. That is what Syndicate is about, not the hero's journey.

So, please, critics, explain to me how a single player game, and a co-operative version of it with identical mechanics, can see such disparaging opinions? Are people so unaccustomed to playing alone that the mere introduction of other human beings is enough to wholly elevate the entire experience to the point that some will call it a whole other game? You are still shooting the same guns, at the same AIs, in simpler levels with less production value. Is it the progression that's doing it for you? Is that process of filling up all those progress bars what makes it a "different game"?

I just don't get it. It's as though the critics don't fully understand what it is that they are criticising; I know I can't have been playing the same game, because Syndicate plays 100% the same in both modes, barring a few more progress bars to fill.

#2 Posted by hbkdx12 (779 posts) -
@Sunjammer: To be quite honest i do believe both modes feel completely like Night and Day. 
 
- Co-op is far more engaging and expansive in terms of gameplay given all the great apps you get to use that you don't experience in any shape, fashion or form in the SP that make for an overall different and better experience.
 
- SP doles out upgrade chips at scripted points in the story as oppose to alotting it to you based on something more dynamic like points or XP so upgrading your agent feels stifled and contrived.
 
In short, Co-op gives you all the tools and room necessary for you to feel like a bad ass super soldier that has a vast array of tricks at his disposal. 
 
I started playing the game in SP and enjoyed for a few hours then i jumped into Co-op and just dropped a weeks worth of hours into it and enjoyed every minute of it. Now that i try to get back to SP again all the gameplay elements feel so bland by comparison that it feels like a chore to want to get through it. 
 
It's to the point that when i want to have fun by myself i create a private room and play co-op alone rather than playing the SP.
#3 Posted by Sunjammer (881 posts) -

@hbkdx12: See I actually agree with you, the co-op is a lot of fun to play and definitely where the meat of the game is at. But what I don't understand is how some reviewers seem to actively dislike the SP, while adoring the MP. I just don't think the differences in actual moment to moment gameplay are that pronounced; The biggest difference, honestly, is that in MP you are healing your teammates and getting healed, and so spend less time in cover.

#4 Posted by hbkdx12 (779 posts) -
@Sunjammer: I'm starting to find myself in that boat of not liking the SP although finding MP to be just pure bliss. Again the experiences are just night and day. Going from Co-op to SP just doesn't translate very well like it does in a lot of other games and it makes the SP suffer being that MP is the far better experience. 
 
Taking an example like Uncharted or COD, where the MP has perks/upgrades that aren't at all present in SP, I've never heard anyone suggest that jumping from one mode to the other and back again felt unintuitive on the whole. IMO syndicate just doesn't have that same level of cohesion for whatever reason.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.